Conquer Club

Gilligan wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:Has anyone been able to verify this xml? Sticky? Potential beta launch?

Still waiting for tnb.

Ok...i thought I saw him for a second, but that was just your avatar. Just kidding, hope all is well with him.

Seamus76 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:Has anyone been able to verify this xml? Sticky? Potential beta launch?

Still waiting for tnb.

Ok...i thought I saw him for a second, but that was just your avatar. Just kidding, hope all is well with him.

Me too...he hasn't visited the site since last Friday, and hasn't posted at all since June 22.

Is there a plan for this? As far as I know it has been checked and is ready to go, but no sticky. Sorry, just impatient.

Seamus76 wrote:Is there a plan for this? As far as I know it has been checked and is ready to go, but no sticky. Sorry, just impatient.

Ditto! Please bring on the beta ASAP!

yawn... lets go! Beta!

Files have been sent!

isaiah40 wrote:Files have been sent!

Thanks. Just saw it's live!! Let the games begin.

Seamus76 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Files have been sent!

Thanks. Just saw it's live!! Let the games begin.

Well that was a mistake, it shouldn't have gone live yet.

Beta - Quenching

---The development period has concluded for the Three Kingdoms of China Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Admins or Foundry Foreman vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
2. It is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.
3. Write a "creative" map description and send it to the Foundry Foreman via PM. You're encouraged to post it into the first post of the thread as well; the description will be used to populate the maps database.

isaiah40

Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Probably BOB misreading it. BOB hasn't been fixed (to my knowledge, anyway) to read the collections bonus properly. You'll see the same problem with USA 2.1's capital cities and interstate bonuses, for example.

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Probably BOB misreading it. BOB hasn't been fixed (to my knowledge, anyway) to read the collections bonus properly. You'll see the same problem with USA 2.1's capital cities and interstate bonuses, for example.

I though BOBs problem with collections was underestimating not overestimating (eg. labyrinth doesn't recognise, multiple minotaur or food bonuses)

This goes the other way (and with each item listed seperately) and thus looks to be a different issue IMO

EricPhail wrote:

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Probably BOB misreading it. BOB hasn't been fixed (to my knowledge, anyway) to read the collections bonus properly. You'll see the same problem with USA 2.1's capital cities and interstate bonuses, for example.

I though BOBs problem with collections was underestimating not overestimating (eg. labyrinth doesn't recognise, multiple minotaur or food bonuses)

This goes the other way (and with each item listed seperately) and thus looks to be a different issue IMO

That does sound like a different problem then, since the one I'm familiar with is underestimating, rather than over estimating.

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Ok, I see this too. I had 3 cities and received +2 instead of the +1 it should be, until 4 cities are held, then +2 would be correct.

So, are you all saying it's an XML issue? If so that's fine, we can take a look and see what the problem is. If it's BOB, then I'm not sure what to do, since some people don't use BOB. But based on what you all are saying it doesn't seem like BOB, correct?

Seamus76 wrote:

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Ok, I see this too. I had 3 cities and received +2 instead of the +1 it should be, until 4 cities are held, then +2 would be correct.

So, are you all saying it's an XML issue? If so that's fine, we can take a look and see what the problem is. If it's BOB, then I'm not sure what to do, since some people don't use BOB. But based on what you all are saying it doesn't seem like BOB, correct?

Whether it's a BOB or XML issue can easily be determined by what bonus you're actually getting as indicated by the game log. If the log is saying +2 for 3 cities then it's likely an XML issue, if it's saying +1 for 3 cities, then it's likely a BOB issue.

Well, for starters, you can get rid of the 3, 5 and 7 city bonus if it's +1 for every 2.

In the XML the 4 City Bonus gives +3...should be +2. 6 says +5 and should be +4, 8 says 7 and should be +6, so the XML is being overshot by 1.

Gilligan wrote:Well, for starters, you can get rid of the 3, 5 and 7 city bonus if it's +1 for every 2.

In the XML the 4 City Bonus gives +3...should be +2. 6 says +5 and should be +4, 8 says 7 and should be +6, so the XML is being overshot by 1.

Surely 6 should give +3 and 8 give +4 (as I said in my first post on the matter - it's currently +1 for each city after the first, rather than +1 per 2 as it's meant to be)

EricPhail wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Well, for starters, you can get rid of the 3, 5 and 7 city bonus if it's +1 for every 2.

In the XML the 4 City Bonus gives +3...should be +2. 6 says +5 and should be +4, 8 says 7 and should be +6, so the XML is being overshot by 1.

Surely 6 should give +3 and 8 give +4 (as I said in my first post on the matter - it's currently +1 for each city after the first, rather than +1 per 2 as it's meant to be)

Right, yeah, sorry.

Gilligan wrote:

EricPhail wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Well, for starters, you can get rid of the 3, 5 and 7 city bonus if it's +1 for every 2.

In the XML the 4 City Bonus gives +3...should be +2. 6 says +5 and should be +4, 8 says 7 and should be +6, so the XML is being overshot by 1.

Surely 6 should give +3 and 8 give +4 (as I said in my first post on the matter - it's currently +1 for each city after the first, rather than +1 per 2 as it's meant to be)

Right, yeah, sorry.

Ok, so is it the XML or what? How do we fix it?

Here you go

Gilligan wrote:Here you go

Thanks!! I'll get the OP and the Official XML thread updated.

kudos...this map is long overdue! an interesting period of china's history

eugenesg wrote:kudos...this map is long overdue! an interesting period of china's history

thanks so much, it's pretty fun so far, and I'm glad you like it.

I did notice another xml fix. It looks like Liang North is coded as a city, which it shouldn't be.

Did anyone else have an issue with the one-way arrow on tian-shu almost blending with the mountainside?
Although once you know it's there you can distinguish it :/

Leehar wrote:Did anyone else have an issue with the one-way arrow on tian-shu almost blending with the mountainside?
Although once you know it's there you can distinguish it :/

I have not had that feedback yet, but obviously if more people have a problem then I will do what I can to fix it.